Action Research Projectsone step ahead in the researcher-practitioner relationships

  1. Mejia-Villa, Andres
  2. Alfaro-Tanco, José Antonio
Revista:
WPOM

ISSN: 1989-9068

Año de publicación: 2017

Número: 8

Páginas: 191-203

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.4995/WPOM.V8I0.7660 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: WPOM

Resumen

This study pretends to highlight the usefulness of developing action research (AR) projects as a way to develop a set of integrated studies based on a dual contribution: academic and managerial ones. The concept of AR Project goes one step ahead in terms of AR methodology as an extended case study. We describe an specific AR Project associated to a doctoral theses in the field of innovation intermediation. As main results, we have learned from this experience that (1) the relationship between researchers and practitioners must be collaborative and based on trust and commitment, (2) an AR Project is broader and more complex than a case study, (3) the diffusion of research results must be differentiated for practitioners and academics, and finally, (4) the AR Project is an open and collaborative innovation practice.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Alfaro, J. A., & Avella, L. (2013). Investigación en acción: Cómo impulsar la contribución de la universidad en la competitividad de las organizaciones. Harvard Deusto Business Research, 2(2), 60-72.
  • Alfaro, J.A.; Mejia-Villa, A.; Recalde, M.; & Rodríguez-Ferradas, M. I. (2017). Las asociaciones empresariales como motores de la innovación estratégica en las empresas: marco teórico y aplicación al caso de Navarra. EUNSA. Pamplona, España.
  • Arieli, D., & Friedman, V.J. (2013). The paradox of participation in action research. Action Research, 7(3), 263-290.
  • Avella, L., & Alfaro, J. A. (2014). Spanish university business chairs used to increase the deployment of action research in operations management: A case study and analysis. Action Research, 12(2), 194-208.
  • Baldwin, C., & von Hippel, E. (2011). Modeling a paradigm shift: From producer innovation to user and open collaborative innovation. Organization Science, 22(6), 1399-1417.
  • Baskerville, R. L. (1997). Distinguishing action research from participative case studies. Journal of Systems & Information Technology, 1(1), 24.43.
  • Buganza, T.; & Verganti, R. (2009). Open innovation process to inbound knowledge. European Journal of Innovation Management, 12(3), 306-325.
  • Chein, I., Cook, S. W., & Harding, J. (1948). The field of action research. American Psychologist, 3(2), 43-50.
  • Coghlan, D. (2007). Insider action research doctorates: Generating actionable knowledge. Higher Education, 54(2), 293-306.
  • Coghlan, D. (2010). Seeking common ground in the diversity and diffusion of action research and collaborative management research action modalities: Toward a general empirical method. In: Pasmore, W.A., Shani, A.B. (Rami) and Woodman, R.W. (eds). Research in Organizational Change and Development, 18, 149-181. Brinkley: Emerald.
  • Collier, J. (1945). Social Research/An International Quarterly of Social Sciences. New York: Graduate fac.
  • Coughlan, P., & Coghlan, D. (2002). Action research for operations management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22(2), 220–240.
  • Coughlan, P., & Coghlan, D. (2016). Action research. In: Christer Karlsson. Research methods for operations management (pp.233-267). New York: Routledge
  • Curle, A. (1949). A Theoretical Approach to Action Research. Human Relations, 2(3), 269-280.
  • Friesike, S.; Widenmayer, B.; Gassmann, O.; & Shchidhauer, T. (2014). Opening science: towards an agenda of open science in academia and industry. Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(4), 581–601.
  • Johansson, A.W., & Lindhult, E. (2008). Emancipation or workability? Critical versus pragmatic scientific orientation in action research. Action Research, 6(1), 95-115.
  • Klocker, N. (2012). Doing participatory action research and doing a PhD: words of encouragement for prospective students. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 36 (1), 149-163.
  • Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2, 34-46.
  • Maestrini, V., Luzzini, D., Shani, A. B. R., & Canterino, F. (2016). The action research cycle reloaded: conducting action research across buyer-supplier relationships. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 22(4), 289-298.
  • McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2010). You and your action research project. London: Routledge.
  • Meredith, J., Raturi, A., Amoako-Gyampah, K., & Kaplan, B. (1989). Alternative Research Paradigms in Operations, Journal of Operations Management, 8(4), 287-326.
  • Miles, R.E., Miles, G., & Snow, C.C. (2005). Collaborative Entrepreneurship: How Communities of Networked Firms Use Continuous Innovation to Create Economic Wealth. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
  • Nogeste, K. (2008). Dual cycle action research: a professional doctorate case study, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 1(4), 566-585
  • Nooteboom, B., Van Haverbeke, W., Duysters, G., Gilsing, V., & Van den Oord, A. (2007). Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 36(7), 1016-1034.
  • Näslund, D., Kale, R., & Paulraj, A. (2010). Action research in supply chain management - a framework for relevant and rigorous research. Journal of Business Logistics, 31(2), 331-355.
  • Ottosson, S. (2003). Participation Action Research: A key to improved knowledge of management. Technovation, 23, 87-94.
  • Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007).University-industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), 259-280.
  • Sexton, M., & Lu, S. L. (2009). The challenges of creating actionable knowledge: an action research perspective. Construction Management and Economics, 27(7), 683-694.
  • Shani, A.B., & Pasmore, W. (1985). Organisation inquiry: Toward a new model of the action research process. In: Warrick, D.D (ed.) Contemporary Organisation Development: Current Thinking and Applications. Glenview, II: Scott Foresman.
  • Susman, G.I., & Evered, R.E. (1978). An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action Research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 582-603.
  • Towers, N., & Chen, R. (2008). Employing the participative paradigm as a valid empirical approach to gaining a greater understanding of contemporary supply chain and distribution management issues. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 36(8), 627-637.
  • Van Lente, H., Hekkert, M., Smits, R., & van Waveren, B. (2003). Roles of systemic intermediaries in transition processes. Journal of Innovation Management. 7(03), 247-279.
  • Von Krogh G. (1998). Care in knowledge creation. California Management Review. 40, 133–153.
  • Westbrook, R. (1995). Action research: A new paradigm for research in production and operations management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 15(12), 6–20.
  • Zuber-Skerritt, O. (2001). Action Learning and Action Research: Paradigm, Praxis and Programs. In: Sankara, S., Dick, B. and Passfield, R. (eds) Effective Change Management through Action Research and Action Learning: Concepts, Perspectives, Processes and Applications. Southern Cross University Press, Lismore, Australia, pp. 1-20.
  • Zuber-Skerritt, O., & Fletcher, M. (2007). The quality of an action research thesis in the social sciences. Quality Assurance in Education, 15(4), 413-436.
  • Zuber-Skerritt, O., & Perry, C. (2002). Action research within organisations and university thesis writing. The Learning Organization, 9(4), 171-179.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet